Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/28/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock, Jr. James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . CALL TO ORDER -. 2. INVOCATION - None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Gary C. Wheeler 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS a. Chairman Bird announced that Item 11H(2) - Silver Oaks Estates Water Lines Extension, which is listed on the Agenda under Utilities, actually is an advertised public hearing & should be moved and placed under Public Hearings as Item 9B(3). 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of 5/7/91 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Clerk to the Board: Approval of Appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Tim Dobeck: Keith A. Sims Gary A. Oliver Chris P. Cassinari Garry M. Chambliss Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 90-1137, in the sum of $432.03 for Clifford or Alyce Bolan. Received and Placed on File in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, month of April, 1991 Copy of Audit Report for the year ended 9/30/90, with regard to Indian River Farms Water Control District UOK. UJ PAU .'tU MAY 2S 1!' r ti of 2 8 i99' n ROOK 83 F',,,:ut 456 7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) : B. Release of Utility Liens (memorandum dated May 15, 1991) C. Fire Truck Purchase, Budget Amendment 041 (memorandum dated May 21, 1991) D. Construction Management & Inspection Services . Indian River Blvd. Phase III (memorandum dated May 21, 1991) CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Presentation of FY 1990 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (memorandum dated May 7, 1991) PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Sebastian General Partnership, BFT. Request to Rezone Approximately 4.45 Acres from CH to CG (memorandum dated May 20, 1991) 2. Central Assembly of God, Inc.'s Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Existing Primary School (memorandum dated May 14, 1991) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Floralton Beach Streetlighting District (memorandum dated May 21, 1991) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued): F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Contamination Assessment Report and Remedial Action Plan for Abandoned Fuel Tanks at the Fleet Management Facility - B.A. #042 (memorandum dated May 21, 1991) 2. South AIA SidewalkResident Observation (memorandum dated May 20, 1991) 3. Testing Services Ranking - Indian River Blvd. Phase III (memorandum dated May 17, 1991) 4. Request for Second Extension of Sandforest P.R.D. Land Development Permit (memorandum dated May 17, 1991) ▪ UTILITIES 1. Citrus Gardens Subdivision Final Pay Request and Change Order (memorandum dated May 13, 1991) 2. Silver Oaks Estates (51st Court) - Water Line Extension (memorandum dated May 16, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD MAY 28 1991 B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. s� ; POO �) FAL 4 MAY 28 1991 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 15. ADJOURNMENT EOOK ©3 PAGE 458 ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. Tuesday, May 28, 1991 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May 28, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. and Commissioner Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Bird announced that Item 11H(2) - Silver Oaks Estates Water Lines Extension, which is listed on the Agenda under Utilities, actually is an advertised public hearing and should be moved and placed under Public Hearings as Item 9B(3). APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of May 7, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of May 7, 1991, as written. "fir 83 PAGE 45 MAY 2 8 1991 MAY 28 199 BOOK 83 FAGS 46 i CONSENT AGENDA A. Clerk to the Board (1) Appointment of Deputy Sheriffs by Sheriff Dobeck ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of the following as Deputy Sheriffs by Sheriff Dobeck: Keith A. Sims Gary A. Oliver Chris P. Cassinari Garry M. Chambliss (2) Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved issuance of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate No. 90- 1137 to Clifford or Alyce Bolan in the amount of $432.03. (3) Reports The following were received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, Month of April, 1991. Copy of Audit Report for year ended 9/30/90 for Indian River Farms Water Control District B. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA: 2 TO: Board of County Commissioners 4") ea R. Keller CLA,CountyAttorney's Office FROM:, Y DATE: May 15, 1991 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 5/28/91 RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS k.gelw I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them: 1. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of: MASSI 2. Release of Special Assessment Lien from ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT in the name of: MITCHELL 3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from CITRUS GARDENS in the name of: ROOKE 4. Satisfaction for Payment of Impact Fee Lien Extension in the name of: MANK Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's Office. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Release of Special Assessment Liens and Satisfaction of Impact Fee Lien Extension as listed above. COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 3 MAY 1991 E461 [1(101([1(101(A CJ =� F' MAY 2 8 1991 PUO!( fAGE 46 C. Fire Truck. Purchase - Budget Amendment #041 The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 21, 1991 SUBJECT: FIRE TRUCK PURCHASE BUDGET AMENDMENT 041 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In the meeting of May 20, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the purchase of a fire engine for North County and a fire engine for South County at a cost of $158,732 each. The purchase was budgeted 1989/90 fiscal year for the North County Fire District. South County Fire District has $65,000 budgeted in their 1990/91 budget for a down payment. Staff has reviewed the lease/purchase and believes that it is in the fire districts best interest from a long term financial aspect to pay cash for the two fire trucks. We are recommending the transfer of the remaining cash balance of $73,227.07 from Federal Revenue Sharing to the South County Fire District to assist in the payment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment appropriating funding for the cash purchase of the fire trucks. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #041 appropriating funding for the cash purchase of the fire trucks as described above and as recommended by staff: 4 TO: Members -of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 041 DATE: May 21, 1991 Entry Number! Funds/Department/Account Name 1. EXPENSE Account Number ; Increase Decrease NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Automotive REVENUE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Cash Forward - October 1 REVENUE 115-104-522-066.42 115-000-389-040.00 $ 158,732 $ 158,732 $ 0 i$ 0 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING Cash Forward - October 1 Interest -Investment 102-000-389-040.00 $ 70,112 102-000-361-010.00,$ 3,115 $ 0 $ 0 i 1 EXPENSE= ~' Funds Transfer Out ;102-199-581-099.211$ 73,227 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING $ 0 REVENUE SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT uFunds Transfer In ,Automotive 114-000-381-020.001$ 73,227 114-120-522-066.421$ 93,732 $ 0 Cash Forward 114-120-522-099.921$ 0 $ 20.505 D. Constrctn Mangmt & Inspection Serv.- I.R.Boulevard, Phase III The Board reviewed memo from the Capital Projects Manager: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, p.E.Jr- Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Consent Agenda Construction Management and Inspection Services Indian River Boulevard Phase III DATE: May 21, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS At the meeting of May 7, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to prepare an amendment to the original contract with Boyle Engineering to provide construction services at the approved Not -to -Exceed Cost of $97,110. 5 MV 28 1991 nor' 83 pA E d. MAS c,1;t 1991 BUR 83 PAGE 464 The attached Amendment No. 7, provides for Construction Administration Services for the full twelve month construction period and Resident Project Representative Services for the initial six months of construction when concurrent activities are expected to be intense. County Staff will conduct on-site observations of the work during the last six months of construction and report findings to the Engineer. RECONNENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the County execute the attached agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation to perform the work at a Not -to -Exceed Cost of $97,110. Funding to be from Fund 309- Indian River Boulevard North. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with Boyle Engineering Corp. at a Not -to -Exceed cost of $97,110. SAID DOCUMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. PRESENTATION OF FY 1990 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT The Board reviewed memo from Finance Director Richard Watkins: DATE: Honorable County Commissioners May 7, 1991 SUBJECT:_ Presentation of FY 1990 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FROM: Richard E. Watkins, Finance Director Request Coopers and Lybrand be placed on the regular agenda for May 28, 1991. Ms. Christine Hill, Engagement Partner and Mr. Dan O'Keefe, Audit Manager, will present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended September 30, 1990. This report was provided to the County Commissioners, the Constitutional Officers and to the BCC staff during the week of April 1, 1991. 6 County Clerk Jeffrey Barton introduced Ms. Christine Hill and Mr. Dan O'Keefe of Coopers and Lybrand. Dan O'Keefe, Audit Manager, came before the Board to review their report. Mr. O'Keefe referred to their report on Page 1, stressing that this is an unqualified opinion. He then went systematically through the report, mentioning first the Combined Balance Sheet on Pages 4 and 5, which shows all your governmental fund types and proprietary fund types. He noted that the General Fund has an unreserved fund balance of $15,597,331. On Pages 8 and 9 is a Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances, and Mr. O'Keefe explained that this is a budgetary comparison of your governmen- tal fund types, which shows you how your actual expenditures went against your budgeted operations. As you can see, your revenues exceeded your original budget estimates and your expenditures were under the original estimate, which resulted in an excess of revenues over expenditures by about two million. This added to your fund balance at the end of the year and put the General Fund in a fairly strong position Mr. O'Keefe felt that the amount of fund balance in the General Fund is fairly conservative and a good amount. If you look at your Special Revenue Funds, which is a combination of a lot of different things and includes among other things grant funds which vary from year to year, you have what looks to be an excess of revenues, and under expenditures, it looks like you overspent your budget, which you really did not because you were budgeting in excess of 11 million. What it actually means is that some of the projects you originally budgeted, you did not complete in this fiscal year. Mr. O'Keefe noted that Page 10 addresses Capital Project Funds, and he explained the way you have been budgeting these projects is that while the aggregate cost of the project is budgeted, you may not necessarily complete it within this fiscal year, which accounts for the bulk of your favorable variance of approximately six million. Mr. O'Keefe moved on to Page 12, All Proprietary Fund Types, explaining that the Enterprise column consists of several different funds, Water and Sewer being the biggest, and it also includes the Landfill as well as the Solid Waste Disposal District. Another entity included within this column is the Housing Authority. Under the Internal Service column, the most important item there is the Self Insurance Program. Mr. O'Keefe continued that looking at your Enterprise Funds, your charges for services are broken out by category. Your Landfill fees are 5 million dollars now, and your Water and Sewer fees also. The 7 MAY 28 i99' LkOCK 83 F'[ 465 MAY 8 1991 BOOK 83 FACE 4b Landfill fees seem high but are not because of the new closure requirements which result in higher closure costs. He gave his opinion that certainly the way the County has structured that particular fund is going to be appropriate to match those costs as you go forward. Mr. O'Keefe felt there is no real problem in those, but asked the Board to flip to the back of the report on Page 102 which is a Combining Balance Sheet for all of the County Enterprise Funds. Page 102 shows total assets of these various funds while page 104 shows liabilities and fund equities. All of these Enterprise Funds except the Golf Course show positive retained earnings. Mr. O'Keefe pointed out that the Golf Course was basically designed to run into a Toss situation in its early years of operation. It has now turned the corner and is starting to make a profit. He understood that the County is going for the second phase of the golf course, and believed it is probably a good time to do that. He believed the County's approach which first concentrated on the course itself rather than having a large clubhouse was what resulted in the revenue producing asset. Page 106 shows the income of the Golf Course this year as $84,437, and Mr. O'Keefe felt the County certainly is on the right track. As to the Solid Waste Disposal District, Mr. O'Keefe cautioned that there are some regulatory requirements for maintenance and closure costs which will have an impact on this fund. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that one of the problems is trying to manage that system and "guesstimate" your closure costs. He confirmed that new requirements of the DER escalated costs of the closure of the first cell considerably over what we had estimated (about $600,000), and although we did negotiate that back some, Commissioner Scurlock felt that shows you the magnitude of what can happen here; so, he did not think you can have too much money when you get to the point of starting to close a Landfill. Mr. O'Keefe stressed the importance of keeping engineering reports updated and current. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about bond coverage on our Enterprise Funds. Mr. O'Keefe directed the Board to the statistical section and referred to Tables 10, 11 and 12, which show your revenue bond coverage ratios for the Sanitary Landfill, Water and Sewer Bonds, and the Golf Course, as follows: 8 REVENUE BOND COVERAGE SANITARY LANDFILL LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 TABLE 10 NET REVENUE DIRECT AVAILABLE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FISCAL GROSS OPERATING FOR DEBT YEAR ENDED REVENUES EXPENSES SERVICE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL COVERAGE 1981 $ 760,956 $ 328,406 $ 432,550 $ 80,000 $ 92,220 $ 172,980 2.51 1982 775,403 442,305 333.098 85,000 87,980 172,980 1.92 1983 787,489 514,946 272,543 90,000 83,078 173,078 1.57 1984 813,213 560,335 252,878 100,000 78,263 178,263 1.42 1985 977,708 624,957 352,751 105,000 75.434 180,434 1.96 1986 1,380,763 710,295 670,468 110,000 69,658 179,658 3.73 1987 1,827,027 756,609 1,070,418 • 120,000 63,586 183,586 5.83 1988 2,281,584 927,423 1,354,161 -0- (1) 221,800 221,800 6.11 1989 4,688,294(2) 1,525,703. 3,162,591 . 390,000 541,605 (2) 931,605 3.39 1990 6,010,717 2,234,830 3,775.887 410,000 518,915 928,915 4.06 (1) On June 1, 1988, $1,050,000 of debt was defeased and new debt in the amount of $8,240,000 was issued. r (2) Including -interest capitalized. • REVENUE BOND COVERAGE WATER AND SEWER BONDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 TABLE 11 NET REVENUE DIRECT AVAILABLE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FISCAL GROSS OPERATING FOR DEBT YEAR ENDED REVENUES EXPENSES SERVICE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL COVERAGE 1981 •$ 489,011 $ 401,444 $ 87,567 $ 4,000 $ 20,125 $ 24,125 3.63 1982 694,703 593,342 101,361 4,000 31,725 35,725 2.84 1983 1,468,307 953,500 514,807 6,000 329,403 335,403 1.53 1984 2,148,521 1,104,741 1,043,780 6,000 569,997 575,997 1.81 1985 2,188,849 1,399,038 789,811 60,900 353,004 413,904 1.91 1986 2,807,022 1,791,169 1,015,853 65,000 456,439 521,439 1.95 1987 3,491,458 1,767,229 1,724,229 93,000 453,674 546,674 3.15 1988 4,067,269 2,356,701 1,710,568 98,000 448,418 546,418 3.13 1989 - 4,988,929 3,144,404 1,844,525 -0- 768,090 768,090 2.40 1990 5,935,522 4,478,469 1,457,053 65,000 796,755 861,755 1.6') REVENUE BOND COVERAGE GOLF COURSE LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 TABLE 12 NET REVENUE DIRECT AVAILABLE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FISCAL GROSS OPERATING FOR DEBT YEAR ENDED REVENUES EXPENSES SERVICE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL COVERAGE 1988 (1) $1,125,389 $ 841,915 $ 283,474 $ -0- $203,818 $203,818 1.39 1989 1,313.313 963,418 349,945 -0- 203,818 203.818 1.72 1990 1,526,621 1,098,544 428.077 -0- 203,818 203,818 2.10 (1) 1988 was the first complete year of operations MAY 2 8 1991 9 «U0!( O) PA[r 467 MAY 28 1999 PAGE 468 Mr. O'Keefe noted that if you look at Table 10, the Sanitary Landfill, in 1990 the coverage comes out to be 4.06, which is well above your required coverage. Commissioner Scurlock wished to point out that we have 4 times normal coverage there. In the Golf Course, we are solid there as well. In the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, we have gone from 3.63 in 1981 down to 1.69 in 1990 as the growth of that system has come on. Mr. O'Keefe noted that there was a lot of acquisition recently of smaller systems, and getting them up to the caliber of your existing system takes some time, effort and cost. Commissioner Scurlock felt these tables show the trend of what we are doing and demonstrate the need for the rate increase. Obviously that coverage is important because if you don't have it, you don't issue debt. Mr. O'Keefe agreed that was a good point. He did want to point out the Housing Authority is moving along very well. He believed they have received final approval from FHA for the final phases of their Victory Park project, and their projects are doing very well and covering their costs. Of course, they still have a need for their overall operating costs to be subsidized by the County, and he believed that is running about $70,000, but the complexes themselves, which they also audit, are doing well and seem to be in good shape. Mr. O'Keefe next referred to the Internal Service Funds set out on page 112 - Fleet Management and Self Insurance. He advised that the Self Insurance Program is, in essence, the County's privately owned and operated insurance company, and accounting for it is treated very much the same as any insurance company. The auditors have to go in and make certain the County has computed their reserves properly. Mr. O'Keefe referred to claims expense including "incurred but not reported claims" which is an actuarial determination. He noted the important thing is that your retained earnings are $539,000. In these funds it is difficult to say if that is a good year or bad, but the main thing is that you are matching your premiums - your charges back to your user departments - with the claims on a fairly good basis. He stressed that you really have to look at this on a year to year basis, but right now they can say that the County has transferred enough money in and is charging your user departments adequately and recovering expenses very well. Mr. O'Keefe then introduced Ms. Christine Hill, a partner in their office and his boss. Ms. Hill felt that Mr. O'Keefe has done a good job leading the Board through the numbers, but she would like to take a few minutes and talk about the nature of 10 their work which extends beyond the numbers. Ms. Hill noted that when they audit, they are required not only to look at results but also how well you have complied with all the rules. Bond coverage already has been discussed, and that is one aspect. There are also state statutes and the County's own Resolutions, and the auditor's job is to ascertain that all of this has been followed and complied with, and at the conclusion of their work, they issue a variety of reports that deal with compliance. In addition, they report on how you comply with the Single Audit Act which has to do with entities which received federal funds. They start off by reporting on internal control structure to ensure your compliance, and Ms. Hill noted that the Commissioners as a Board are an important part of that structure. They have studied all this and determined there were no internal weaknesses in the structure of Indian River County. They also have looked at laws and regulations - for instance, if you failed to levy taxes properly, but they found nothing that would have a material impact. Pages 98 and 99 recap all the monies the County received. They gave a report on the internal control structure the County used to administer these programs and noted no instances of material weaknesses. Ms. Hill advised that at the back of their report, you will see all the individual reports they issued on each of the Constitutional Officers. She wished the Board to know that the auditors received excellent cooperation from all of the individuals here in the County and they have enjoyed working here. Commissioner Scurlock referred the Board to the chart on pages 170 and 171 which sets out expenditures by function for the last twelve years, as follows: 11 MAY 281991 -451 1 1 1 IV F1SCAL YEAR ENDED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTJON LAST TWELVE FISCAL YEARS TRANS - TOTALS (1) GENERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SAFETY PHYSICAL ENVIRON- MENT TABLE I POR- TATION ECONOMIC ENVIRON- MENT HUMAN SERVICES CULTURE AND RECRE- ATION DEBT SERVICE 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 $ 9,012,735 10,718,715 15,478,845 15,963,177 25,076,324 24,238,056 27,922,816 37,513,067 46,757,296 42,545,657 47,314,363 68,812,282 f 2,661,764 30% $ 3,733,632 34% 7,803,462 50% 5,78.5,774 36% 4,994,475 20% 5,375,130 22% 6,268,428 22% 7,385,581 20% 7,503,480 16% 8,592,908 20% 10,648,161 23% 12,011,708 17% 2,713,774 3,215,924 2,928,720 4,095,539 7.590,194 8,041,180 8,744,025 14,219,590 17,726,261 16,724,374 18,812.177 27,129,895 30% $ 358,787 30% 295,358 19% 367,708 26% 626,969 30% 1,072,198 33% 1,331,464 31% 3,208,108 38% 4,078,489 38% 691,168 39% 727,949 40% 226,796 40% 5,701,984 (1) Includes General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Protect Funds 4% $2,393,777 27% 3% 2,284,654 21% 2% 2,138,323 14% 4% 3.358,194 21% 5% 4,049,612 16% 6% 5,305,712 22% 12% 4,913,254 18% 11% 5,578,238 15% 1% 9,428,021 20% 2% 7,577,677 18% 0% 7,656,874 16% 8% 9,812,006 14% $206,075 72,708 85,557 114,271 61,954 65,911 189,076 503,028 71,175 81,902 105,943 123,112 2% $250,305 1% 520,662 1% 679,993 t% 849,850 0% 1,189,239 0% 1,188,292 1% 960,393 1% 1,355,362 0$ 1.770,528 o% 2,171,445 0% 2,560,922 0% 2,702,806 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 4% $376,870 498,181 502,141 582,992 5,548,529 1,168,854 1,663,069 1,068,594 4,562,676 2,205,954 4,878,744 7,449,117 4% $51,383 0% 5% 97,596 1% 3% 972,941 6% 4% 549,588 3% 22% 570,123 2% 5% 1.761,513 7% 6% 1,976,463 7* 3% 3,324,185 9% 10% 5,003,987 lt% 5% 4,463,448 11% 11% 2,424,746 5% 11% 3,881,654 6% 170. 171. 'Commissioner Scurlock felt it to the above, particularly when we since this chart shows that Public is important to pay attention are going into budget sessions Safety has increased to where it is now about 40% of our General Fund, and our budget has increased up to 68 million. The dramatic increase in Public Safety shows a corresponding fairly significant decrease in Transportation, which has dropped from 27% of our expenditures in 1979 to 14% in 1990. Also debt service has come into play during these years; there was no debt to speak of in 1980. In addition, Culture and Recreation which was only 4% has now risen to 11%. Commissioner Scurlock then referred to the chart showing general revenues by source for the last 12 years, as follows: TAKE 2 INDIAN R19ER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL REVENUES BY SOURCE (1) LAST TVELVE FISCAL YEARS FISCAL YEAR ENDED TOTAL ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNOS TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS INTER- GOVERNMENTAL REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES AND FORFEITURES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 2 9,256.883 10,513,690 11,865,042 15,441.252 18,091.251 25.401.809 27,858,613 35,083,395 44,351,509 49,618,543 54,899,516 65,803,143 $ 4,733,494 5.271,474 6,623,268 8,555.434 9,822,008 13,562,769 15,968.766 22,249,158 24,807,101 32,069,112 33,371,314 42,336,845 50, $ 253,451 50% 357,574 562 110.911 551 158,140 50 216.956 581 194,527 572 202,570 63% 219,821 562 219,902 641 243,975 61% 285,200 652 223,674 (1) Includes General, Special Revenue, Deet Service, and Capital Project Fonds S 2,622,682 2,719,202 2,335.627 3.077.365 4,468,772 5,688,581 7,572,818 6,365,280 9.252,713 7,912,270 8,636,945 9,298.727 282 262 19i 205 251 242 265 182 212 162 162 142 $.646,463 645,291 939,44 999,405 1,154,220 ' 1,410.273 1,549,948 2,191,524 3,675,834 3,478,601 4,856,808 5.366,564 72 S 264,471 68 274,541 82 286,151 72 321.023 62 715.615 61, 528.779 62 504,875 62 558,281 82 474,244 71 509,082 92 558,017 88 626,632 3i 3i. 22 21 41 22 22 2% 12 1% ti 12 • 8 736,322 1,245,808 9,669,535 2,331,885 1,713.680 2,017.280 2,259,636 3.499,331 8i 12: 142 155 to% 9i 81 101 5,921.715" 131 5,405,503 115 7,191,232 13% 7.950,701 122 Commissioner Scurlock felt it is unfortunate that in spite of our efforts to have user fees, impact fees, etc., taxes still have gone from 51% in 1979 up to 65% in 1990. By the same token, however, intergovernmental revenue has dropped from 28% to 140 during the same period, and if you look from that to the taxes, you can see what happened. The fact is that total taxation has been pushed back to the local level; we have lost the state and federal sources; and more and more our revenues are being consumed by essential services. Ms. Hill noted that this is not atypical; all counties are dealing with this problem of shrinking assistance from state and federal sources; and she believed it will be a continuing problem to deal with in face of the growth in Florida. The Commissioners do not have an easy job. Commissioner Scurlock asked OMB Director Baird what, in general, our franchise fees are up to now. 13 MAY 28 1991 EEV[IP O L) PAL 471 Pr - MAY 28 i99� BOOK 83 [AGE 472 Director Baird advised they are about 3 million, but pointed out that revenue source is because the state requires Commissioner Scurlock considered a tax it be shown that stressed that is on this report way. 3 million that is being generated that is more associated to a user fee. Chairman Bird thanked the auditors for the job they have done and their presentation. REZONING TO CG S OF SEBASTIAN - (SEBASTIAN GENERAL PARTNERSHIP) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VENO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being krAle) vo„,A.,#) In the matter of xl%404.`,./A11-0-w,01 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore peen continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount,,rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. _ Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19 9/ (SEAL) (Business Manager) • (CI t Cuurt, mato RIver-feur %yr Florida) Notary Public, Store of Florida My C immbeion Expires June 2P, 1993 ' 14 :PROPERTY N: CG . NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a county ordinance rezoning land from: CH, Heavy Commercial District to CG, General Commercial District. The subject property is owned by Sebas- tian General Partnership, BFT, and is located on the west side of U.S. #1, approximately 850 feet south of Woodmere Road. The subject property is lying in the NE V4 of Section 7, Township 31 South, Range 39 East and contains approximately 4.45 acres. • A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of • Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commis- sioner Chambers of the County Administration ' Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, '. Florida, on Tuesday, May 28, 1991, at 9:05 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners may adopt a Tess Intense zoning district than the district re- quested provided it Is within the same general use category. who may wish to appeal any dedsion • which may be made at this meeting will need to en- • sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is • made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners •' • Byh: -s- Richard N. Bird, . , May 7, 1991 •, y ' • ,r, 793978 Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVI •N HEAD CONCURRENCE L -a obert M. Kea ing, Community Developmen THRU: Sasan Rohani ' . j2. Chief, Long -Range !lanning FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek Senior Planner, Long- ange Planning DATE: May 20, 1991 RE: SEBASTIAN GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, BFT. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.45 ACRES FROM CH TO CG •It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 28, 1991. 'DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone approximately ±4.45 acres from CH, Heavy Commercial District to CG, General Commercial District. The property is located on the west side of U.S. #1, approximately 850 feet south of Woodmere Road. The property is owned by Sebastian General Partnership, BFT. The applicant intends to develop the property with offices. On April 11, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of this reqeust. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property lies within the Sebastian City Limits/U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node and is zoned CH. Property to the north and south of the subject property is vacant and shares the same CH zoning. The FEC railroad right-of-way abuts the western property boundary; west of the railroad right-of-way is Old Dixie Highway and vacant property zoned IL, Light Industrial District. East of the subject property is U.S. #1; east of U.S. #1 is vacant land zoned CG, General Commercial District. Future Land Use Pattern The entire 4.45 acre parcel lies within the Sebastian City Limits/U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node. This designation permits various types of commercial and industrial zoning categories. Properties on all sides of the subject property share this land use designation. Transportation System The subject property has access from U.S. #1, which is classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of U.S. #1 is a four lane divided, paved road with approximately one hundred twenty (120) feet of existing public road right-of-way. 15 Y281991 8-3 Flq:E 473 booK MAY 28 •99` BOOK 83 PAGE 474 Environment The subject property is not located within a floodplain as identified by Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM). Staff has, however, confirmed the existence of isolated Bayheads on the subject property. Utilities and Services The site is within the urban service area. Wastewater lines lie .within of a mile of the site. Water lines do not extend to the site at the present time. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis ofthe reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: * Compatibility of surrounding areas * Concurrency of public facilities * Consistency with the comprehensive plan * Potential impact on environmental quality This section will also consider alternatives for development of the site. Compatibility With the Surrounding Areas Compatibility is not a major concern for the property. The subject property is centrally located within a commercial/industrial node. Generally, property on the west side of U.S. #1 has been zoned for heavier commercial and light industrial development. However, the subject property and properties to the north and south of the. subject property are undeveloped, vacant parcels. The requested zoning for the subject property would be compatible with commercial development east of U.S. #1, as those properties are developed with retail uses, including the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart Shopping Center. The subject property will be buffered from more intense commercial and industrial development to the west by the FEC Railroad right-of-way and Old Dixie Highway. Based upon the analysis performed on the subject property, staff feels that the requested commercial zoning would be compatible with the surrounding area. Concurrency of Public Facilities The site is located in the County Urban Service Area (USA), an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. - Transportation Review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed development of the property indicates that the existing level of service "C" or better would be maintained for U.S. #1. A typical high traffic generator which could be built in the proposed CG district on the subject property would generate approximately 4,390 trips per day. The actual number of trips would depend on the total square footage and the exact mix of uses. A four -lane divided road can accommodate approximately 35,000 average daily trips at a level of service "C". The 1990 average daily trips 16 projected for this segment of U.S. #1 is 22,916 trips. The additional 4,390 trips created by the proposed zoning will increase the total trips for U.S. #1 to 27,306 average daily trips. This figure represents just under 78% of the level of service "C" capacity for this portion of U.S. #1. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that U.S. #1 can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing its existing level of service. A more detailed review of transportation impacts will be required as part of the development review process. - Utilities The site is within the urban service area, and wastewater lines extend to the site. The applicanthas paid the necessary impact fees for wastewater service for the subject property and will connect to the system at the time of development. Since water lines do not extend to the site at the present time, the applicant must provide such service at the time of development of the property to occur. The applicant has entered into a developer's agreement which states that the applicant agrees to connect to the county water system when service becomes available. With these <,:conditions, concurrency for water and wastewater will be satisfied. - Drainage All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development on the property will be required to maintain the pre- existing discharge rate for the design storm, as well as provide for stormwater treatment and flood attenuation. Together, these regulations limit the potential for on-site and off-site flooding and damage. As with all development, a more detailed analysis will be conducted during the project review phase. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick up by private operator disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of landfill has a 4 -year remaining capacity, and the landfill expansion capacity beyond 2010. - Recreation and the has Concurrency for recreation is not applicable for this request as the request is for commercial development, and recreation levels of service apply only to residential development. With the execution of the developer's agreement as referenced above in the utilities section, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Staff has confirmed the presence of isolated wetlands on the subject property. As part of the county's land development regulation requirements, staff will review environmental impacts at the time of development review. At that time, staff will require an environmental survey showing all wetland communities on-site. The existence of isolated wetlands on the subject property does not necessarily preclude development of the property. Chapter 928 of the Land Development Code contains provisions to protect wetlands in the following sequence: * Wetland impact avoidance; * Minimum impact with on-site, 17 , MAY 281991 type -for -type mitigation; BOOK 8:3 PAGE 475 Pr" MA28199 aooK83 F1GE 4 76 * Minimum impacts with off-site, type -for -type mitigation; * Minimum impacts with off-site, non type -for -type mitigation; and * "fee -in -lieu" mitigation (mitigation bank) Preliminary inspection of the property by county environmental planning staff indicates that the property could be developed as either heavy commercial or general commercial, with the existing disturbed wetlands either incorporated into the development design or appropriately mitigated in accordance with county regulations. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan A review of this rezoning with the Future Land Use Map and policies, as well as the policies of the other plan elements, does not reveal any inconsistency. Among the policies applicable to this request is Future Land Use Policy 1.15 which permits various uses on commercially designated land; these uses include office commercial which is the use proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the proposed request is consistent with the commercial/industrial corridor policy. CONCLUSION The rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for commercial uses of various types and has met all applicable criteria. Staff support the subject request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to CG. Director Keating spoke of the benefit of having access to the railroad tracks for commercial zoning of almost any type. Commissioner Bowman contended that there is no such thing as mitigation of bayheads, and when it comes to site development plans, she would urge this be incorporated in your surface water management plan. She believed the bayhead at Vickers Road was totally destroyed. Director Keating confirmed that one at the warehouse was destroyed, but believed the one south of there near the lunber yard was adequately saved. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Ihere were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 91-24 rezoning property to CG as requested by Sebastian General Partnership. 18 ORDINANCE NO. 91- 24 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE •ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CH TO CG FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 1, APPROXIMATELY 850 FEET SOUTH OF WOODMERE ROAD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS; the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: All of that portion of the north one-half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying East of the right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railroad and West of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 1. Be changed from CH to CG. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 28 day of May , 1991. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 7 .. day of May • -..YA X77, 1991 for a public hearing to be held on the. 28 day of May , 1991 at which time it was moved'•for-" adoption'by Commissioner -- Wheeler- , seconded by CommissionerScurlock , and adopted by tjie following vote:""• Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert —Aye Commissioner Margaret C2 -Bowman Aye ,Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: MAY 28 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman 19 LINK 83 F.A.0 477 MAY 28199 E001( 83 PAGE 478 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL (CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL • Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Beford'the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Journat, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter of al,7jar Lj In the / �J Court, was pub- lished In said newspaper in the issues of v /fi 7 / Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) r y of A.D. 19 91 t/ Business Manager) b lc, St- "o Iuvsoo Cbmaliesion Expires June 29. 1993 • A • aX3:' w t4OTICE — PUBUC t1EARfNO I ;' Notice of -hearing to consider the granting of a garbed exception ry school propertyap�r pre by Central of God. Inc., end is located at 6767 20th ' Road 60), south of the Vista Planta - lion Development. The subject property is Iyrg to the NE 1i of the SE 1e of Section 8. Towrishl 33 S. •Renge 39 E. Mng and being In hien River Canty. Epode. pubSo hearing it which parties in interest and citizens anal have en opportunity to be heard. wilt 'be held by the Board of Canty Ccinsrasskurs of Mien River County, Florida, at the County Conrss- • stoner Crtarribers of the' Conray Adevnistradon Building. tatted at.1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida, on Tuesday, May 28.1991. at 9•'05 e.m. n.'Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision .hiltloh may be made at this meeting will need to en- ` :sure that a ,tverbatlm record of the prooeeckgs Is • 'Made, With includes testimony and evidence upon Wicti the appeal Is based. -r •., • INDIAN RNER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS !"+--"' BY: -s- Richard N. Bird, Cfhebtrtarr. • _" id793983 Planning 7,1991 „ .... , Planning Director Boling made the staff presentation, as follows: 20 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: obert M. Keating AIC Community Develop ent •'rector THROUGH: Stan Boling,4AICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: May 14, 1991 SUBJECT:_ CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, INC.'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR AN EXISTING PRIMARY SCHOOL SP -MI -91-03-18 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 28, 1991. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: John Dean, on behalf of Central Assembly of God, Inc., is requesting special exception use approval for existing primary school facilities located at 6767 20th Street. The applicant is seeking formal approval to legalize the primary school use which has been operating on the site for a period of over four (4) years. Although no building permits or certificates of occupancy will need to be issued for the existing facilities, compliance with any approval conditions can be ensured via code enforcement action. At its May 9, 1991 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (7-0) granted administrative use approval (final action) for a day care center use for the site and conditionally approved the site plan with the conditions recommended by staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission also unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the primary school. Final action on the special exception request for the school must now be taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Special exception uses are those types of uses that would not generally be appropriate throughout a particular zoning district. However, when special exception uses are carefully controlled as to number, area, location, and/or relationship to the vicinity, such uses would not adversely impact the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, morals and general welfare and as such would be compatible with permitted uses within the particular zoning district. In granting any special exception, the Board may prescribe appropriate special conditions and safeguards to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding uses in the district. MAY 28 1991 21 83 F'Mvt��dCV r MAY 28 991 ANALYSIS: 1. . Size of Property: 38.59 acres 2. Zoning Classification: 5 acres) 3. Land Use Designation: to 8 units per acre) 4. Existing Building Area: 24,517 sq. ft. or 1.46% of the site 5. Existing Impervious Area: 73,488 sq. ft. of 4.4% of the site 500K 8r= PAGE 480 A-1, Agriculture 1 (up to one unit per M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up 6. Open Space Required: 1,006,236 sq. ft. or 60% of the development area. Provided: 1,603,572 sq. ft. or 95.6% of the development area. 7. Traffic Circulation: The site is accessed from State Road 60 with a single two-way drive. This access was previously approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant has agreed to upgrade the project's S.R. 60/driveway intersection traffic signage and pavement markings as indicated by the County Traffic Engineer on the project site plan. 8. Off -Street Parking: Required: Church 1000 seats (1 space/4 seats) Day Care 4 staff members (1.5 spaces/staff) 250 6 Primary School 5 classrooms & 6 non -teaching staff members (2.5 spaces/classroom + 1 space/non-teaching staff member) 19 Total 275 spaces Provided: Handicapped (paved) Compact Standard (paved) Standard (unpaved) Total 7 0 22 223 252 spaces* The County Traffic Engineer has approved the use of non -concurrent parking (shared over time) for this project. The 25 spaces required for the day care and primary school uses will be included with the spaces required for the church use, since the two uses will not be active at the same time. 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan was previously approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A" Stormwater Permit was effectively issued. 10. Landscape Plan: The existing landscaping for the project complies with the landscape plan approved with the project's previous site plan. As no new development is proposed, updating the landscape plan is not required. 11. Utilities: The project is currently served by public water and wastewater service. The Utilities Department has not accepted the project's sewer line as the sewer line was not constructed completely within an existing utility easement. The applicant must execute one of the following options: 22 a. Arrange for the appropriate off-site utility line easements for the constructed sewer line in its present location; b. Relocate the sewer line into the existing utility easement; or c. Bond -out for reconstruction of the sewer line in a manner acceptable to the Utilities Department. 12. Required Improvements: .Pursuant to Section 914.15(2)(b), the project is exempt from providing bikeway and sidewalk improvements. Streetlighting improvements were effectively addressed by the project's previously approved site plan. 13. Thoroughfare Plan: •State Road 60 The County Thoroughfare Plan designates S.R. 60 as an arterial roadway with an ultimate right-of-way design width of 200'. Currently, a 168' wide right-of-way exists for S.R. 60. However,the Public Works Department has determined that right- of-way is not to be obtained from this project site at this time. 14. Environmental Planning: As this project is seeking approval only for existing development and not for new additional development, preservation of native vegetation is not required at this time. 15. Specific Land Use Criteria: Special Exception Criteria for Primary Schools in the A-1, Agriculture 1 Zoning District [971.14(4)]: a. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local residential streets in residential subdivisions. Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways. b. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial requirements for the site shall be similar to standards utilized by the Indian River County School Board and the State of Florida. c. No main or accessory building shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any property line not adjacent to a street or roadway. No main or accessory building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any property line abutting a local road right-of-way that serves a single family area. d. The applicant shall submit a description of anticipated service area and projected enrollment, by stages if appropriate, and relate the same to a development plan explaining: 1. Area to be developed by construction phase. 2. Adequacy of site to accommodate anticipated facilities, enrollment, recreation area, off-street parking, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation on site including loading, unloading and queuing of school bus traffic. 3. Safety features of the development plan. 23 LAM( 28 199j BOOK 83 FAuE 481 MAY 28 99( e. [Ado. FacE No rooms within the school shall be regularly used for the housing of students when located in a Single Family Residential District. f. The facilities shall have a Type "C" buffer in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3 and RS -6 Districts. All of these criteria have been addressed and are satisfied by the application. Staff has determined that the required Type "C" Buffer requirement is met by the combination of existing vegetation on the site and by the existing setback of over 550' between the facilities and the adjacent shared property lines. 16. Concurrency Management: Since the project currently exists and no new development is proposed, the project is exempt from the County's concurrency requirements. 17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: S.R.60/Vista Plantation Residential and Commercial Development; RM -4, Residential Multiple -Family (up to 4 units per acre) and CN, Commercial Node South: Vacant Land, Groves/A-1 Agriculture 1 East: Vacant Land, Groves/A-1, Agriculture 1 West: Vacant Land, Groves and one single-family residence/A-1, Agriculture 1 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the existing primary school use. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted Special Exception Use approval for an existing primary school as requested by the Central Assembly of God. SILVER OAKS ESTATES WATER LINE EXTENSION (RESOLUTION III) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 24 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Bch in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a j v In the matter of P,t46 -/ a,cj2 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues ofL ' j /�y =2'1�/ / L �� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in. Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this raLl_. deer o ,iFi'1/' A.D. 19 (SEAL) „AA(Business Man der) .i i....t• .17F.: -(CISFR'oHhe-e ver-eountyr Iorida)'" NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991, to discuss a proposed resolution relating to a SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT In Indian River County for the Installation of a WATERUNE IN SILVER OAKS ESTATES (51st COURT), and providing for special assessment liens to be made Of record on the properties to be ' Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based May 13, 20, 1991 798203 Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: MAY 16, 1991 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO TERRANCE G. PIN DIRECTOR OF UTI VICES H. D. "-DO?KE" OSTR, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SILVER OAKS ESTATES (51ST COURT) WATER LINE EXTENSION IRC PROJECT NO. UW -90 -16 -DS BACKGROUND On May 7, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 91-53 and Resolution 91-54, which contained the preliminary assessment roll and set the public hearing date for the subject project. Resolution 91-53 (attached) was published in the Press Journal on May 13, 1991. Homeowners have been notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Nine out of eleven benefitted property owners (82%) have previously signed a petition for water. 25 PUOK 83 PACE 483 MAY 28 1991 MAY 28 1991 ANALYSIS ROOK 83 PAGE 484 The DER permit has been received; plans and specifications have been prepared in-house. An informational meeting for all property owners in the subject subdivision was held on May 15, 1991. All attendees voiced their enthusiasm for the project and were eagerly awaiting County water service. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm the special preliminary assessment. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of Resolution III and its accompanying preliminary assessment roll. Director Pinto stressed that the people are very anxious to get water; they need it very badly and need it as quickly as possible. The Chairman asked if there was anyone who wished to be heard. Ernest Rovella, 5090 Rosewood Road, brought up the oak tree that is there. He believed if the roots are cut, it may die, and if it did, he was told the residents would be responsible for removal of the tree. He just wished to be on record that someone should be responsible if the tree should die, and he would like to know who would be responsible. Director Pinto believed that because we are going in there with the water, we should take the responsibility of removing the tree if it should die. Commissioner Eggert asked if that included replacing it, and Director Pinto indicated it would, if possible. He noted that this is a very big tree and we are designing around it so he doubted it would be affected. Mr. Rovella brought up the possibility of changing the design and tunneling under his neighbor's concrete driveway to avoid the tree by a greater distance. Director Pinto assured him that we have looked very closely at the design; we are looking at hand digging and using rubber tired equipment; he believed we are doing everything possible. The Chairman having determined that no one else wished to be heard, closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-64 confirming the special assessments in connection with a water line installation in Silver Oak Estates. 26 e' RESOLUTION NO. 91-__U A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A WATER LINE INSTALLATION IN SILVER OAK ESTATES (51ST COURT); PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 91-53, adopted May 7, 1991, determined to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a waterline installed in Silver Oak Estates (51st Court); and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said - special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 91-54, on May 7, 1991, which set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 11-53, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Monday, May 13, 1991, and Monday, May 20, 1991 (twice one week apart, and the last being at least one week prior to the hearing) , as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County on Tuesday, May 28, 1991, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 27 MAY 28 99' E OOK 83 PA(,[ MAY 28 1991 BOOK 83 Fu.45f; -1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in full. 2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon. declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 28 day of May , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN R VER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Ls Richard N. Bird Chairman SAID RESOLUTION W/ATTACHED ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. FLORALTON BEACH STREETLIGHTING DISTRICT OMB Director Baird reviewed the following: 28 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 21, 1991 SUBJECT: FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FLORALTON BEACH STREETLIGHTING DISTRICT • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners in January of 1990 authorized staff to bill Flora1ton Beach monthly until they could be added to the tax bill. Indian River County has been billing Floralton for streetlights since March 1990 at a cost of approximately $110.00 a month. Staff would lice to establish an M.S.B.U. for Floralton Beach and begin billing them as soon as possible. We would like to point out that the annual cost would increase due to G & A charge, property appraiser and tax collector fees (see budget below). FLORALTON BEACH (Estimated First Year) Streetlights (106 x 12) $1,320.00 G & A Charge 75.00 Commissions and Fees 50.00 Property Appraiser 50.00 Contingency 66.00 First Year (20%) 262.00 $1,823.00 1,823 divided by 48 parcels/acres = $37.98 annual parcel/acre charge (Estimated Second Year) Streetlights (106 x 12) $1,320.00 G & A Charge 75.00 Commissions and Fees 50.00 Property Appraiser 50.00 Contingency 66.00 $1,561.00 1,561 divided by 48 parcels/acres = $32.50 annual parcel/acre charge RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney's staff to draft an ordinance establishing Floralton Beach Streetlighting District. NAY 2 8 1991 29 RUUK `I PACE 487 MAY 28 1991 • PON( 83 F,1GE 48S Director Baird explained that we have been billing them monthly, and they have been saying that it has been a.. hardship to collect. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the legal staff to draft an ordinance establishing Fioralton Beach Streetlighting District. CONTAMINATION REPORT & PLAN FOR ABANDONED FUEL TANKS AT FLEET MANAGEMENT FACILITY (BUDGET AMENDMENT #042) The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: James E. Chandler, County Administrator. James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director Contamination Assessment Report and Remedial Action Plan for Abandoned Fuel Tanks at the Fleet Management Facility_ BUDGET AMENDMENT 042 DATE: May 21, 1991 FILE: tanks.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The contaminated soil removal and disposal phase is now complete at the Fleet Management Facility (4550 S. Gifford Road). In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-770 (Petroleum Cleanup Criteria), the County must initiate a Contamination Assessment within thirty days of ;.discovery of contamination. A Contamination Assessment Report must be prepared by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer or a Registered Professional Geologist and submitted to the Florida DER within six months of discovery of contamination. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has contacted three environmental consulting firms and has requested site inspection and submittal of fee proposals for performance of contamination assessment report services. The attached Table summarizes the Scope of Services and Fee Proposal for the three firms. The alternatives presented are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Since time is of the essence, formal CCNA procedures or competitive bidding is not recommended. Staff has communicated with the City of Vero Beach and City of Sebastian and neither entities have used CCNA procedures nor competitive bidding due to time. constraints. 30 .The firm submitting the least costly proposal is ENVIRx, LTD. (Hollywood, FL). Alternative No. 1 is to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement between the County and ENVIRx, LTD. at a cost not to exceed $22,200 for the Contamination Assessment and $3,500 for a remedial action plan. Alternative No. 2 Proceed through the CCNA procedures to select a consultant. This action will take a minimum of 45 days. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the Chairman is authorized to execute the attached agreement between Indian River County and ENVIRx, LTD. Funding in the amount of $25,700 to be from MSTU Contingencies as provided for in the attached budget amendment. Commissioner Eggert believed we have to do this no matter what, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that his question was just whether it is mandatory to do it at this time. We are operating that type of equipment, and there is always potential contamina- to have to keep doing this tion; so, he did not want continuously. Director Davis advised that once you acknowledge you had spillage, state law requires you must begin the contamina- assessment within 90 days. Chairman Bird asked if there is any possibility of recapturing the cost of this from the state. Director Davis reported that he had heard they were extend- ing the grant for these things, and we are pursuing that to see if we can get in under the deadline. some tion ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Alternative No. 1, agreed to waive formal CCNA procedures, authorized the Chairman to execute agree- ment with ENVIRx, LTD. as recommemded by staff and approved Budget Amendment #042, as follows: lembers of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 042 DATE: Mav 21, 1991 Entry I pumberl Funds/Department/Account Name 1. !EXPENSE IM.S.T.U./Fleet Management ;Other Professional Services (Reserve for Contingencies Account Number I i I i i i 1004-242-591-033.19IS 25.700 IS 0 1004-199-581-099.9115 0 :S 25,700 1 1 Increase Decrease SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 31 MAY 28 1991 ROOK 8d PAd 0 MAY 28 1991 SOUTH A1A SIDEWALK RESIDENT OBSERVATION Rooa. 83 PAGE 490 The Board reviewed memo from the Capital Projects Manager: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: South A1A Sidewalk Resident Observation DATE: May 20, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. will be providing resident observation services to the City of Vero Beach for;the installation of a reuse water main along A1A in conjunction with the County's proposed sidewalk. Construction of these two projects were combined through a Joint Construction Project Agreement, dated February 12, 1991, between Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach. Based on the schedule provided by the Contractor, the construction of the sidewalk will take approximately ten weeks. During construction of the sidewalk, approximately two hours of inspection will be needed per day. Staff feels that the most cost effective means of inspecting this project is to use the services of Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. who will be on site for the City of Vero Beach. Attached is an agreement for Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. to provide 100 hours of resident observation services at a fee of $32.00 per hour for each hour of service that is required, up to a maximum Not -to -Exceed Cost of $3,200. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Authorize the attached agreement with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. to provide resident observation services. Alternative No. 2 Deny the attached agreement and staff will provide resident observations services. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Alternative No. 1 is recommended whereby the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to execute the. attached agreement. Funding is from account 173-214-541-066.31. 32 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute agreement with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc., as recommended by staff. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. TESTING SERVICES RANKING - I.R.BOULEVARD PHASE III The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P. E.~'31 1 Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Testing Services Ranking Indian River Boulevard Phase III DATE: May 17, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County solicited Letters of Interest from Professional Engineering and Testing firms to provide testing services during the construction of Indian River Boulevard from SR 60 to Barber Avenue (37th Street). The selection committee consisted of Maggie Bowman, County Commissioner; Wilson Weatherington, Field Operations Coordinator; and myself. The Committee reviewed submittals, short-listed three firms and interviewed the short-listed firms. The resultant ranking of firms by the selection committee is as follows: 1. Jammal & Associates, Inc. 2. Fraser Engineering and Testing, Inc. '3. Ardaman & Associates, Inc. RECONNDATIONS AND FUNDING The committee recommends that staff be authorized to negotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm. Funding is from 309 -Indian River Boulevard North. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized staff to negotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm as listed above. 33 MY 2 8 1991 POOK 83 f'ACE 4U1 Pr - MAS 28 1941 aOOK 83 F'.1GF REQUEST FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SANDFOREST P.R.D.) The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer David Cox: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James- W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo and Roger D. Cain, P. County Engineer FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.41114 Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Second Extension of Sandforest P.R.D. Land Development Permit REFERENCE: PRD -88-04-03 DATE: May 17, 1991 • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Land Development Permit No. 081 was issued on February 5, 1990 to Sandforest Corporation to construct a 15.1 acre, 88 lot subdivision. Sandforest P.R.D. is located south of 5th Street SW between 6th Avenue SW and Old Dixie Highway. An extension of the permit was granted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 21, 1990. Because construction has not started the permit extension expired on February 17, 1991, 180 days after the extension was granted. Carter Associates in behalf of Sandforest Corporation has submitted a written request dated February 22, 1991 for a second extension of the permit. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS On May 15, 1991 the Utilities Services Department extended approval of the project's utility construction permits for water distribution and wastewater collection and transmission until January 3, 1992. The Community Development Department has requested modifications be made to two of the conditions that were included in the first permit extension. Conditions Nos. 4 and 5 listed on the August 21, 1990 extension approval letter would be changed to the following: 4) Areas to be preserved or cleared shall be clearly staked and verified by county environmental planning staff prior to clearing commencement. (a) In addition. all preservation areas shall be placed under a conservation easement prior to approval of or via the protect final plat(s). 5) Debris shall be removed to an approved disposal facility or-, burned with an air curtain incinerator. rectuiring a burn permit through the Environmental Health Department. The Land Clearing and Tree Removal Permits would automatically be extended with the Land Development Permit. The three original conditions of the February 5, 1990 Land Development Permit approval would also apply to the extension, with the exception that the new expiration date would become January 3, 1992 based on the expiration of the Utilities Construction Permits. 34 Alternate No. 1 Grant extensions of the Land Development Permit and Land Clearing and Tree Removal Permits with the conditions described above. Alternate No. 2 Deny extension and require the developer to submit new applications and review fees for Land Development, Land Clearing and Tree Removal Permits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Alternate No. 1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter requesting second extension of Land Development Permit dated February 22, 1991. 2. Letter extending Utilities Construction Permits dated May 15, 1991. 3. Letter approving first extension of Land Development Permit dated August 21, 1990. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted extension of the Land Development, Land Clearing, and Tree Removal Permits for Sandforest Corporation, with the conditions set out by staff in the above memo. CITRUS GARDENS SUBDV. - FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER The Board reviewed memo from Engineer William McCain: DATE: TO: FROM: MAY 13, 1991 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILItTY/SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM AND STAFFED CAPITAL BY: DEPAR SUBJECT: cCAIN EC NGINEER UTILITY SERVICES CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER BACKGROUND The water distribution system in Citrus Gardens Subdivision is now complete, and customers are connecting. To this end, we are bringing the Final Pay Request and Change Order No. 1 to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. 35 PLVW SAY 2 8,1991 4r MAY 28 1991 ANALYSIS 83 �4 MN( f'„�4U[,r. Attached please find the Final Pay Request in the amount of $15,469.82; also attached is Change Order No. 1, with a net increase of $741.36. This contract came in approximately 30% under the original assessment amount. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order and Final Pay Request. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #1 and Final Pay Request in the amount of $15,469.82 for Utility Systems of America, Inc., as recommended by staff. ,1.9.3. Change 0 dcr CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Page _I_ of 2 CHNNGE ORDER NO. ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $ 82,919.92 DATE M rj 1 4, 1991 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $ 83,661.28 JOB NAME X DIAN RIVEj�COUNTY PROJECT #t1W89-17-DS. POTABLE WA'TER DISTP.I,BUTIOTt SYSTEM, CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION OWNER _INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UNIT ORIG. ORIG. :TOTAL REVISED UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. 2. 3. 4. MOBILIZATION 6" PVC 4" PVC 6" GATE VALVES 500.00 6.41 4.70 255.00 LS 5000 LF 3650 LF 8 EA 500.00 32,050.00 17,155.00 2,040.00 -- (-121] [ - 9) -- -- -775.61 -42.30 -- 500.00 31,274.39 17,112.70 2,040.00 5. 4".GATE VALVES 201.00 6 EA 1,608.00 -- -- 1,608.00 6. FIRE HYDRANTS 1204.00 4 EA 4,816.00 -- -- 4,816.00 7. 1",SHORT LATERAL 125.72 51 EA 6,411.72 -- -- 6,411.72 8. 1" LONG LATERAL 175.40 31 EA 5,437.40 [- 3) -526.20 4,911.20 9. 1-1/2" SHORT LAT 229.60 5 EA 1,148.00 + 2 + 459.20 1,607.20 10. 1-1/2" LONG LAT. 266.70 10 EA 2,867.00 -- -- 2,867.00 11. PVD RD RESTOR 12.00 70 LF 840.00 + 79 + S48.00 1,788.00 12. PVD DR RESTOR 12.00 150 LF 1,800.00 [-119) -1428.00 372.00 13. NON -PVD RD REST. 2.00 1475 LF 2,950.00 -- -- 2,950.00 14. NON -PVD DR REST. 2.00 675 LF 1,350.00 (- 84) -168.00 1,182.00 15. SEED/MULCH 0.31 6280 LF 1,946.80 [-393] -121.83 1,824.97 16. SOD -- -- -- + LS +2396.10 2,396.10 TOTALS 82,919.92 741.36 83,661.28 36 The amount of the Contract will be (DmeRB " D)(INCREASED)(414Efi Ep) by the sum of: Sven Hundred Forty One PQ tars nd,36J10O (written amount) Dollars (S 741.36 The Contract total including this Change Order will be: Eighty Three Thousana Sih_ttpd,na__Sixty One and 28/190 (written amount) Dollars (S 63.661.28 �. The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be (DECREASED) (INCREASED)(UNCHANGED): Days. ( )- This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: OWNER: 4TsL,Ty SYJ'AiwS of DATE: 5//7 7/ „I DATE: 41.11A A i ldasteel ler. Moler 6 11eyf ield. Inc. DATE: Indian Bi_yer County: Richard N. Bird, _Chairman Board of County Commissioners, There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:45 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: (::?Clertk)c3N— MAY 26 lin L__ 37 Chairman ROOK 4C J f E .j �